PDA

View Full Version : The Rules of the Pharisees



godspeaker
Mar 7th 2011, 01:03 PM
The Jewish Pharisees were the dominating religious sinners when Jesus entered the world to be used to preach the gospel and be sacrificed for the forgiveness of sins. The flesh of Jesus was the only sinless flesh of man to exist since man was first put on earth. This enabled God to use his flesh for his own purpose.

The Pharisees believed they knew the scriptures better than anyone because they learned to memorize large portions of the law. This gave their sin of pride a lot to protect so they became fearful of anyone preaching or teaching something different than they were. They made their own rules to keep out certain people they didn't like or they were fearful of. They were called the sinners because they didn't know the god of the scriptures like the Pharisees knew him. These people were the lepers, tax collectors, drunks, prostitutes, thieves, poor, etc.

Jesus wasn't a Pharisee and he hadn't memorized scriptures like they did but every word he spoke was inspired by God. God used his vocabulary that he learned while going to Sabbath day scripture readings with his family. This is all God needs because he inspires these vocabulary words by arranging them according to God's knowledge before they were spoken by Jesus. Jesus said many times that his Father gave him the words to speak of the understanding in his stories.

The flesh of all men were made corrupt with a sin nature that was inherited from the sin nature of Adam and Eve. Jesus was the only one born without this sin nature because God changed the seed of his parents before he was conceived in the womb. This made the flesh of Jesus totally obedient to the spoken word of God.

This sin nature twists the thoughts of truth in the mind of a man and this is what makes us sinners. We take the truth of God and make it a lie to satisfy our sin nature so we worship our own ideas instead of the true God. Only God can change this sin nature in a sinner through a long process of confession, repentance and forgiveness.

Jesus knew by the time he started preaching the gospel that everyone were sinners. He also knew that some sinners elevate themselves above other sinners like the Pharisees did. Jesus called them the righteous people but only in a sarcastic way. They were self-righteous because of their sin of pride that was strengthened by their ability to memorize scriptures. They loved other people who could do the same as they did.

When Jesus spoke the inspired words of God to them, they couldn't understand them because their sin nature confused his words in their minds and made them fearful. Jealousy causes lots of fear in many sinners so they were trying to get Jesus to adhere to their rules and laws they knew so well. They didn't realize the created existence of Jesus was the law and commandments of God called the Word. Jesus had the judge within his heart, mind and soul and was judging the Pharisees as they were mocking his inspired words.

They really got jealous when Jesus spent time with the outcasts that the Pharisees condemned as sinners. Jesus knew that all God's people would be saved from their sinful flesh but the Pharisees didn't believe this. They believed in their own interpretations that told them the wicked, thieves, adulterers, and other names they read about in the scriptures were those they condemned. They didn't realize these names were about all the flesh of man. They didn't know that the flesh was separated from our created existence in God and that only our bodies die. Our created souls remain in God at all times.

When a group of people makes rules to keep out other sinners, they are just like the Pharisees who ended up seeking the death of Jesus because he was breaking their rules and laws. Jesus was put to death because of blaspheme of the scriptural god of the Pharisees that they had in their imaginations.

When I sign up in these forums with all these rules with what we can and can't say, I know exactly what I'm getting into. The commandment to not bear false witness against thy neighbors doesn't apply to the righteous modern day Pharisees who have their own rules and laws to abide by. The sin nature of man hasn't changed since the first people who twisted the commandments of God and did their own thing. It hasn't changed since the Jewish Pharisees had Jesus killed and it won't change until the last flesh of man is killed during this age.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 01:15 PM
And amazingly, Jesus told his followers to obey them. Matthew 23:2-3. Heh.

notuptome
Mar 7th 2011, 01:34 PM
And amazingly, Jesus told his followers to obey them. Matthew 23:2-3. Heh.
You do realize that Jesus follwed this with some of His harshest criticisms of the religious Pharisees in the bible. Jesus described them as hypocrits, whited sepulchurs and a generation of vipers? It is one thing to observe what the law requires and it is wholly another thing to follow the works of apostate Pharisees.

Just how does one live Deut 6:5?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 01:39 PM
You do realize that Jesus follwed this with some of His harshest criticisms of the religious Pharisees in the bible.
And yet he told his follwers to obey them. Heh.



Jesus described them as hypocrits, whited sepulchurs and a generation of vipers? It's interesting that he describes them in this way. Mostly because he's the only one so critical of them, and his characterization is at odds with what we actually know about them.


Just how does one live Deut 6:5?

I fail to see what it has to do with the topic at hand.

godspeaker
Mar 7th 2011, 01:49 PM
Not the kind of rules that the Pharisees use.

godspeaker
Mar 7th 2011, 01:54 PM
No sinner can follow the law and commandments of God that condemn them to death. Only the chosen ones were made sinless saints after Jesus died so they became the law and commandments. There's a long process of confession, repentance and forgiveness that God forces his chosen one to go through to make him sinless so he learns who he is in God. Then he'll never sin again.

notuptome
Mar 7th 2011, 01:59 PM
And yet he told his follwers to obey them. Heh.
Follow the law or follow the Pharisees?

It's interesting that he describes them in this way. Mostly because he's the only one so critical of them, and his characterization is at odds with what we actually know about them.
Now that's funny. What is it you suppose you know about them? What they have said of themselves? I would put a lot of confidence in that assessment. Jesus as God knew what was in their hearts because it ws not hidden from Him. I think the people knew how crooked the Pharisees were but they were powerless to resist them.

I fail to see what it has to do with the topic at hand.
By rule you are to keep what is written in Deut 6:5. Tell me how to do it. How do the Rabbis teach obedience to Deut 6:5?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

divaD
Mar 7th 2011, 02:11 PM
It's interesting that he describes them in this way. Mostly because he's the only one so critical of them, and his characterization is at odds with what we actually know about them.



That all depends tho. Suppose Jesus knew them inside and out..literally? But let's put that idea on hold for a minute. What if it were God Himself who was critical of them? Would God be justified in doing so? If yes, doesn't that tell us something about Jesus then? How could He have known them inside out, in order to be that critical of them?
Where was He coming up with this stuff, and why? It was almost as if He were playing God or something. But He was just a man. How can a man be God also? If you pay close attention to some of the things Jesus did and knew, one would have to conclude that He did and knew things only God would do and know. Only God can judge someone from the inside..as in inner thoughts, etc. And this was exactly what Jesus did as well, since you yourself stated that his characterization is at odds with what we actually know about them. So was Jesus a mind reader then? Perhaps a good guesser? Or was He something far greater? Like maybe God or something?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 02:17 PM
Follow the law or follow the Pharisees?Matthew 23: So you must obey them and do everything they tell you

Or maybe I'm just reading it wrong


Now that's funny. What is it you suppose you know about them? What they have said of themselves? I would put a lot of confidence in that assessment. Jesus as God knew what was in their hearts because it ws not hidden from Him. I think the people knew how crooked the Pharisees were but they were powerless to resist them. We have what they wrote, and the rules they lived by, and it's nothing like what the NT describes. But what can I say? You have to believe that book.


By rule you are to keep what is written in Deut 6:5. Tell me how to do it. How do the Rabbis teach obedience to Deut 6:5?
"Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."

How does one show love? By doing what makes the loved party happy. In this case, by following God's wishes. That would be the Law.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 02:21 PM
That all depends tho. Suppose Jesus knew them inside and out..literally? But let's put that idea on hold for a minute. What if it were God Himself who was critical of them? Would God be justified in doing so? If yes, doesn't that tell us something about Jesus then? How could He have known them inside out, in order to be that critical of them? To say that God was critical of them is to already be speaking as a Christian. Why would God be critical of them? Because of that the NT says?



. And this was exactly what Jesus did as well, since you yourself stated that his characterization is at odds with what we actually know about them. So was Jesus a mind reader then? Perhaps a good guesser? Or was He something far greater? Like maybe God or something?
Or maybe he was just plain wrong.

divaD
Mar 7th 2011, 02:37 PM
To say that God was critical of them is to already be speaking as a Christian. Why would God be critical of them? Because of that the NT says?


Since God would be the discerner of the heart, perhaps He knew something about them that might not be so apparent to someone looking at them on the outside.


Or maybe he was just plain wrong.


What would have been His motivation then?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 02:40 PM
Since God would be the discerner of the heart, perhaps He knew something about them that might not be so apparent to someone looking at them on the outside. If it wasn't visible from the outside, and everything they were saying was technically correct, I don't see the purpose in railing against them. Why not speak out against people who were teaching and doing the wrong things, as opposed to those only thinking the wrong things?





What would have been His motivation then?
To prove himself right?

divaD
Mar 7th 2011, 02:51 PM
If it wasn't visible from the outside, and everything they were saying was technically correct, I don't see the purpose in railing against them. Why not speak out against people who were teaching and doing the wrong things, as opposed to those only thinking the wrong things?



But they were doing wrong things as well.

Matthew 23:34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

If God was the one sending these prophets, and wise men, and scribes,
then why wouldn't Jesus' criticism of them not be justifiable?






To prove himself right?

Why tho, if He were just plain wrong? Only a deranged person would act in a manner as that. Jesus was far from being deranged.

notuptome
Mar 7th 2011, 02:55 PM
Matthew 23: So you must obey them and do everything they tell you

Or maybe I'm just reading it wrong
Why would any teacher advise His students to follow hypocrits or vipers? Perhaps Jesus is saying follow what is written in the scriptures and not the crooked Pharisees?

We have what they wrote, and the rules they lived by, and it's nothing like what the NT describes. But what can I say? You have to believe that book.
Ahh...so they would not have any bias in what they said of themselves? These are not the same ones who slew the prophets sent to them from God? Let God be true and every man a liar.

"Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."

How does one show love? By doing what makes the loved party happy. In this case, by following God's wishes. That would be the Law.
How does one love with all his strength? Or all his heart? Or all his soul? Or does all mean something less that all? I love my wife to the exclusion of all other women but I still cannot make her happy all the time. I love my children yet I cannot exclude my wife. The scripture says all not just to the best of my ability. What shall I do?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 02:56 PM
But they were doing wrong things as well.
Your whole contention was that their vices were "hidden", and that Jesus must have been magical to know of them. Now their vices were plain to see? Then why did Jesus tell his followers to obey them?








Why tho, if He were just plain wrong? Only a deranged person would act in a manner as that. Jesus was far from being deranged.C'mon, everyone does this. "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong".

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 03:01 PM
Why would any teacher advise His students to follow hypocrits or vipers? Perhaps Jesus is saying follow what is written in the scriptures and not the crooked Pharisees?Dunno, but that's what he said.



Ahh...so they would not have any bias in what they said of themselves? We know the rules they laid down and the laws they followed. Unless the entire Talmud is a vast cover-up. Maybe you believe that, I don't know.


These are not the same ones who slew the prophets sent to them from God? No one "slew the prophets", least of all the Pharisees who didn't even exist in the era of the prophets.


How does one love with all his strength? Or all his heart? Or all his soul?I don't have a problem with this.

Firefighter
Mar 7th 2011, 03:06 PM
No sinner can follow the law and commandments of God that condemn them to death. Only the chosen ones were made sinless saints after Jesus died so they became the law and commandments. There's a long process of confession, repentance and forgiveness that God forces his chosen one to go through to make him sinless so he learns who he is in God. Then he'll never sin again.

Are you his chosen one?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 03:07 PM
Are you his chosen one?
That's probably coming up sooner or later....

awestruckchild
Mar 7th 2011, 03:26 PM
If it wasn't visible from the outside, and everything they were saying was technically correct, I don't see the purpose in railing against them. Why not speak out against people who were teaching and doing the wrong things, as opposed to those only thinking the wrong things?



Fenris, I know you don't believe Jesus is the Messiah. But surely you can see that God doesn't want technical obedience without a mans whole heart, can't you? Okay, so you don't believe Jesus, but aren't there many Ot verses which tell us that God doesn't want us to honor Him with our lips technically but to keep our heart and mind far from Him? I can't bekieve these words are going to come from my mouth but, forget Jesus then for the moment - can't you, if you are honest, find that God Himself in the OT has said this many times?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 03:31 PM
But surely you can see that God doesn't want technical obedience without a mans whole heart, can't you?
Of course God desires the heart. That doesn't mean He won't accept any less.

A Jewish perspective of the law is that by repeatedly performing it, it becomes part of a person's nature. Even if one does it for all the wrong reasons, eventually they will come to do it for the right reasons.

BroRog
Mar 7th 2011, 03:45 PM
No sinner can follow the law and commandments of God that condemn them to death. Only the chosen ones were made sinless saints after Jesus died so they became the law and commandments. There's a long process of confession, repentance and forgiveness that God forces his chosen one to go through to make him sinless so he learns who he is in God. Then he'll never sin again.This isn't true. Keeping the commandments isn't impossible.



In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. Luke 1:5-6

Justification while under the law. It wasn't out of reach for a person to take God's covenant seriously and do what the law prescribed.

BroRog
Mar 7th 2011, 03:50 PM
When Jesus calls the Pharisees "hypocrites" his meaning comes from the Greek word for "actor". To be a hypocrite in Greek culture is to act in a play. It was Jesus' observation that the Pharisees were acting the role of a righteous person, without actually being a righteous person.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 03:53 PM
When Jesus calls the Pharisees "hypocrites" his meaning comes from the Greek word for "actor". To be a hypocrite in Greek culture is to act in a play. It was Jesus' observation that the Pharisees were acting the role of a righteous person, without actually being a righteous person.

He apparently appoved of what they were doing, if not their motives, since he told his followers to obey them.

Strange that he did not speak out against the Saducees though.

BroRog
Mar 7th 2011, 04:15 PM
He apparently appoved of what they were doing, if not their motives, since he told his followers to obey them.

Strange that he did not speak out against the Saducees though.I'm not sure he approved of what they were doing, but he told the crowds to listen to what they say. I take from this that what the Pharisees had to say was pretty good. But what they did with it themselves was pretty awful. With regard to the Saducees, it would seem that Jesus left them alone pretty much except to critique their view that there was no resurrection from the dead. The sense I get from the NT is that Jesus dealt primarily with the Pharisees because the Pharisees were willing to dialog with Jesus in public. And some of them invited Jesus over for dinner. Eventually some of them became his followers, but others sided with the high priest. It was a mixed bag.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 04:26 PM
I'm not sure he approved of what they were doing, but he told the crowds to listen to what they say. I take from this that what the Pharisees had to say was pretty good. But what they did with it themselves was pretty awful. Shrug. As I say, it's difficult to reconcile with what else we know about them. But it's your holy book, so I can belabor the point no further.



With regard to the Saducees, it would seem that Jesus left them alone pretty much except to critique their view that there was no resurrection from the dead.
It's odd. The Saducees were the ones with the polical power, since they had many members of the priesthood in Jerusalem and they were wealthy and Roman toadies to boot. They were also generally very strict in application of the Law, unlike the Pharisees who tended to rule leniently on the law when possible. There's actually a maxim in the Talmud "Do not make a burden the community cannot bear".

Yes, it's very strange. Almost as if he mixed the two groups up. Just saying.


The sense I get from the NT is that Jesus dealt primarily with the Pharisees because the Pharisees were willing to dialog with Jesus in public. And some of them invited Jesus over for dinner. Eventually some of them became his followers, but others sided with the high priest. It was a mixed bag.
That they would dialog I do not doubt, since they were always willing to discuss some point. Why they would side with the high priest who was a saducee I have no idea...

divaD
Mar 7th 2011, 04:28 PM
He apparently appoved of what they were doing, if not their motives, since he told his followers to obey them.

.



What about context?

Matthew 23:3....but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

After saying that, it's no wonder Jesus followed with this.

3 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
......

Jesus never told His followers to follow these, as in be like them. Just because He stated this...All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do. If what they were saying was in accordance with the laws of God, then why shouldn't Jesus want them to listen to them in that regards? Truth is truth, no matter the source. He said don't be like them tho, since they talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. This all goes back to what I was saying earlier..Jesus understood then inside and out. Only God is worthy to judge someone on the inside. Jesus had no right nor authority to do that, if He were merely a man only.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 04:35 PM
What about context?He told his followers to obey them. Fine, don't copy them (although they had many many qualities worth copying. But whatever...) but obey them.



4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.Difficult to reconcile with the Talmud. But it's your holy book, I know.




After saying that, it's no wonder Jesus followed with this.

3 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!Probably anachronistic, reflecting later Jewish-Christian tensions. Anyway, I thought you said that "God sent the scribes".



Only God is worthy to judge someone on the inside. Jesus had no right nor authority to do that, if He were merely a man only. I see people judging others on what "on the inside" all the time.

notuptome
Mar 7th 2011, 06:03 PM
Dunno, but that's what he said.
I will enlighten you. Jesus said for them to follow the scriptures not the Pharisees. Obey what God had written in the law not the perverted interpretation presented by the Pharisees.

We know the rules they laid down and the laws they followed. Unless the entire Talmud is a vast cover-up. Maybe you believe that, I don't know.
God laid down the rules. God wrote the law. Do you ascribe to the inspiration of the word of God?

No one "slew the prophets", least of all the Pharisees who didn't even exist in the era of the prophets.
Jesus referenced Neh 9:26 when He spoke in Mat 23:37

I don't have a problem with this.
Then your all is quite different from the all in the scriptures.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 06:21 PM
I will enlighten you. Jesus said for them to follow the scriptures not the Pharisees. Obey what God had written in the law not the perverted interpretation presented by the Pharisees.When you say "enlighten me", do you mean "tell me to ignore the plain text"?

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you."


God laid down the rules. God wrote the law. Do you ascribe to the inspiration of the word of God?Leaving "interpretation" aside for a moment, there are planty of gaps in what the bible says. It tells us to do things without specifying what they are. Since God didn't want us stumbling about like blind men, He must have provided this information as well. Yes? No?


Jesus referenced Neh 9:26 when He spoke in Mat 23:37All fine and good. Two problems. First of all, the Pharisees did not exist in Nehemiah's time, or during the era of the prophets. Secondly, the Jews didn't kill any prophets; this is the speech of a contrite person confessing sin. I challenge you to find another reference in the bible that shows "the Jews" killing prophets. There isn't any.


Then your all is quite different from the all in the scriptures.Or maybe God knows that we are imperfect and doesn't expect perfection from us. Shocking, I know.

Diggindeeper
Mar 7th 2011, 06:26 PM
Your whole contention was that their vices were "hidden", and that Jesus must have been magical to know of them. Now their vices were plain to see? Then why did Jesus tell his followers to obey them?

C'mon, everyone does this. "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong".

My perception of the Pharisees of Jesus' day is this. Jesus exposed them as being hypocritical because you see, NOBODY prayed as loudly or as long as THEY did. They loved doing that in the market place...to be seen and heard of men! Nobody fasted as much as them. My goodness, nobody even WASHED THEIR HANDS more often than them! They even criticized Jesus and his disciples for not washing their hands more often.

What Jesus was saying, there is nothing wrong with praying. Or fasting. Or even washing your hands! But, the Pharisees did a lot of this to 'be seen of men.' And we must beware that we don't want to 'sit in the seat of Moses' or that our motive is NOT to gain the praise of men or desire the 'uppermost seats' or to merely 'look' all holy to men. Because God knows the thoughts and intents of our heart.

Its not that we are to abandon the ten commandments, etc. But that our heart is where it should be in our serving.

One Pharisee was heard saying, "Lord, I'm glad I'm not like that man! I pray often, I fast often, etc." In other words, he was all-holy, all-righteous, NOT a sinner at all, DOING IT ALL PERFECTLY, above others.

We just ought not to think of ourselves more highly than we ought! Paul said it well...


Romans 12:3
For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 06:38 PM
My perception of the Pharisees of Jesus' day is this. Jesus exposed them as being hypocritical because you see, NOBODY prayed as loudly or as long as THEY did. They loved doing that in the market place...to be seen and heard of men! Nobody fasted as much as them. My goodness, nobody even WASHED THEIR HANDS more often than them! They even criticized Jesus and his disciples for not washing their hands more often.

What Jesus was saying, there is nothing wrong with praying. Or fasting. Or even washing your hands! But, the Pharisees did a lot of this to 'be seen of men.'

You know, there were plenty of worse crimes he could have been complaining about. There were robbers, and killers, and rapists. The Romans occupied Judea and levied heavy taxes against the populace, and apponted the High Priest to the Highest Bidder. Really. There were Jews who wanted to be Roman and Greek, culturally and religiously. There were plenty of people who flat out ignored the law.

The Pharisees acting extra-religious is the big issue to him? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

Unless of course Jesus wanted to de-legitimize them. So that people would follow him, perhaps?

RogerW
Mar 7th 2011, 06:57 PM
You know, there were plenty of worse crimes he could have been complaining about. There were robbers, and killers, and rapists. The Romans occupied Judea and levied heavy taxes against the populace, and apponted the High Priest to the Highest Bidder. Really. There were Jews who wanted to be Roman and Greek, culturally and religiously. There were plenty of people who flat out ignored the law.

The Pharisees acting extra-religious is the big issue to him? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

Unless of course Jesus wanted to de-legitimize them. So that people would follow him, perhaps?

Or perhaps Christ was simply exposing them for the liars and hypocrites they really were! The Pharisee's were so insane with jealousy against Christ, that murdering Him was their way.

Mt*12:14 Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
Mt*12:15 But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
Mt*12:16 And charged them that they should not make him known:
Mt*12:17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
Mt*12:18 Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 07:05 PM
Or perhaps Christ was simply exposing them for the liars and hypocrites they really were! The Pharisee's were so insane with jealousy against Christ, that murdering Him was their way.


Since our only evidence for this is the NT, I'm inclined to be skeptical.

The Pharisees had plenty of disagreement with the Saducees, the Essenes, heck, even with one another. I don't think there's a single instance of them killing anyone over it.

keck553
Mar 7th 2011, 07:06 PM
Oddly enough, I've run into quite a few "Pharisees" in my Christian walk. Or perhaps its not so odd afterall.

keck553
Mar 7th 2011, 07:08 PM
Since our only evidence for this is the NT, I'm inclined to be skeptical.

The Pharisees had plenty of disagreement with the Saducees, the Essenes, heck, even with one another. I don't think there's a single instance of them killing anyone over it.

And then there's the idea that God rebukes those whom He loves, and leaves the totally lost alone. You don't see Him railing so much against the Sadducees, who were totally corrupt. I think that is telling.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 07:14 PM
And then there's the idea that God rebukes those whom He loves, and leaves the totally lost alone. You don't see Him railing so much against the Sadducees, who were totally corrupt. I think that is telling.
The OT prophets rebuked all the Jews. Including the Ten Tribes, who are now literally "totally lost". And for much worse crimes than haughtiness or hypocrisy.

I just don't see it, sorry.

notuptome
Mar 7th 2011, 08:25 PM
When you say "enlighten me", do you mean "tell me to ignore the plain text"?

Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you."
Far be from me to suggest you ignore the plain reading of the text.

Leaving "interpretation" aside for a moment, there are planty of gaps in what the bible says. It tells us to do things without specifying what they are. Since God didn't want us stumbling about like blind men, He must have provided this information as well. Yes? No?
Well faith does not require understanding. Faith is trusting God that He gives instruction for our good even and especially when we cannot predict the long term ramifications of it. Where do you find these gaps? We should look at them.

All fine and good. Two problems. First of all, the Pharisees did not exist in Nehemiah's time, or during the era of the prophets. Secondly, the Jews didn't kill any prophets; this is the speech of a contrite person confessing sin. I challenge you to find another reference in the bible that shows "the Jews" killing prophets. There isn't any.
More of the plain reading of the text I suppose...1 Kings 18:4, 19:10 Perverted religious rulers have been in authority in Israel many times. Kings, High Preists and Pharisees all bear the same guilt before God.

Or maybe God knows that we are imperfect and doesn't expect perfection from us. Shocking, I know.
Yet if He does then our only hope is in Him and His mercy and His grace. No man was ever righteous by human merits. Righteousness can only be had by imputation from God.

God has told us that we cannot be righteous according to the law. Righteousness is only by grace.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

keck553
Mar 7th 2011, 08:27 PM
The OT prophets rebuked all the Jews. Including the Ten Tribes, who are now literally "totally lost". And for much worse crimes than haughtiness or hypocrisy.

I just don't see it, sorry.

Perhaps Jesus recogniaed Sola Scriptura as more authoratative than rabbinical rulings?

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 08:29 PM
Perhaps Jesus recogniaed Sola Scriptura as more authoratative than rabbinical rulings?
Not possible with Judaism. As I have pointed out, the laws oftentimes are lacking in specifics. The bible doesn't even bother to define "work" on the sabbath, as one example.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 08:33 PM
Far be from me to suggest you ignore the plain reading of the text. Dude! New cat picture! Awesome!!


Well faith does not require understanding. Faith is trusting God that He gives instruction for our good even and especially when we cannot predict the long term ramifications of it. Where do you find these gaps? We should look at them.We're not talking about faith, we're talking about following the laws of the bible. Many of which are completely unexplained. let's use out quoted chapter as an example. Jesus rails against "wide phylacteries". Tell me, what is a 'phylactery'?


More of the plain reading of the text I suppose...1 Kings 18:4, 19:10 Perverted religious rulers have been in authority in Israel many times. Kings, High Preists and Pharisees all bear the same guilt before God.
Ah. Bad rulers. Yes, Israel had those. Tell me, was it the people's fault if a "bad ruler" killed a prophet?



Yet if He does then our only hope is in Him and His mercy and His grace. No man was ever righteous by human merits. Righteousness can only be had by imputation from God.
The bibel says otherwise, but...you believe what you believe.

keck553
Mar 7th 2011, 08:37 PM
Not possible with Judaism. As I have pointed out, the laws oftentimes are lacking in specifics. The bible doesn't even bother to define "work" on the sabbath, as one example.

Understood. You know, I was raised in a Mormon environment. They have many, many traditions of the elders that they also claim to be fences. The problem is the fences are observed at the sacrifice of the intent of the law. Not sure if this makes sense to you.

By the way Fenris, I think you'll enjoy this off-thread story. My wife and I collect Bibles, so we usually stop at every estate sale. This weekend, we stopped at one and found a book called "Torah" and subtitled as a modern commentary. It has the Hebrew, a translation (not interlinear) and various commentaries, including Christian commentaries. Anyway, when we asked the guy how much the book cost, he asked "Is this a law book?" Oh, the irony. I could see the 'ching ching' in his head, I wanted to say "this is THE Law book, but alas I said, 'no, it's a Bible.' So he said 5 bucks.

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 08:48 PM
Understood. You know, I was raised in a Mormon environment. They have many, many traditions of the elders that they also claim to be fences. The problem is the fences are observed at the sacrifice of the intent of the law. Not sure if this makes sense to you.Still doesn't explain what 'work" is. The rabbis didn't invent defintions of "work" as a fence.


By the way Fenris, I think you'll enjoy this off-thread story. My wife and I collect Bibles, so we usually stop at every estate sale. This weekend, we stopped at one and found a book called "Torah" and subtitled as a modern commentary. It has the Hebrew, a translation (not interlinear) and various commentaries, including Christian commentaries. Anyway, when we asked the guy how much the book cost, he asked "Is this a law book?" Oh, the irony. I could see the 'ching ching' in his head, I wanted to say "this is THE Law book, but alas I said, 'no, it's a Bible.' So he said 5 bucks.

Heh. It sounds like an interesting find. I bet you read it cover-to-cover!

notuptome
Mar 7th 2011, 09:14 PM
Dude! New cat picture! Awesome!!
My copy editor. To keep me out of trouble. No guilt ever!

We're not talking about faith, we're talking about following the laws of the bible. Many of which are completely unexplained. let's use out quoted chapter as an example. Jesus rails against "wide phylacteries". Tell me, what is a 'phylactery'?

Phylacteries were small cases in which passeges of the scripture were enclosed. these were then bound upon a mans arem and forehead. The Pharisees made them large so they would draw attention to how devoted they were to God and Gods word. They did not believe Gods word but saw it as a means to obtain wealth and power over the people.

Ah. Bad rulers. Yes, Israel had those. Tell me, was it the people's fault if a "bad ruler" killed a prophet?
When the righteous are in authority the people rejoice. When the authorities are evil it is not so.

The bibel says otherwise, but...you believe what you believe.
I think the main disagreement here is that you believe it says something other than what I believe. Nevertheless the writings of The Rabbis are of no more authority than any other mans writing. There is not one man in the bible that ever was righteous by his own efforts. God either declared him righteous or he was not righteous.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 09:25 PM
My copy editor. To keep me out of trouble. No guilt ever!Good at correcting typos too, I see. Awesome, I need one of those.


Phylacteries were small cases in which passeges of the scripture were enclosed. these were then bound upon a mans arem and forehead.
Ah. Where in the bible may they be found?


The Pharisees made them large so they would draw attention to how devoted they were to God and Gods word. They did not believe Gods word but saw it as a means to obtain wealth and power over the people.
The Pharisees were mostly working-class, believe it or not.


When the righteous are in authority the people rejoice. When the authorities are evil it is not so. So is it really fair to blame "the Jews" for the actions of a bad king?


I think the main disagreement here is that you believe it says something other than what I believe. Nevertheless the writings of The Rabbis are of no more authority than any other mans writing.
Shrug. According to you. And your cat, I suppose.

notuptome
Mar 7th 2011, 10:37 PM
Good at correcting typos too, I see. Awesome, I need one of those.
A harsh taskmaster.

Ah. Where in the bible may they be found?
Come on aren't they are used today in the barmitzvah?

The Pharisees were mostly working-class, believe it or not.
Under whose authority?

So is it really fair to blame "the Jews" for the actions of a bad king?
God is the Judge of all the earth. God has said that evil rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil. Do that which is good and thou shalt have reward of the same. Well at least He did in the NT Rom 13:3 Saul was made king even though he was not Gods first choice.

Shrug. According to you. And your cat, I suppose.
Carefull the cat bites. To be fair I don't think the pope is of any authority equal to God either.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 7th 2011, 10:48 PM
A harsh taskmaster.Cats usually are!


Come on aren't they are used today in the barmitzvah?
Where in the bible may they be found?


Under whose authority?Jospehus? The Talmud?


God is the Judge of all the earth. God has said that evil rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil. Do that which is good and thou shalt have reward of the same. Well at least He did in the NT Rom 13:3 Saul was made king even though he was not Gods first choice.You didn't answer my question.


Carefull the cat bites.
cats sometimes do...

notuptome
Mar 7th 2011, 11:14 PM
Where in the bible may they be found?
The bible is found in them and they are on the shelf next to the bible covers.

Jospehus? The Talmud?
The high preist?

You didn't answer my question.
I'm not God. Good thing no doubt.

cats sometimes do...
Only natural.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

thethirdtuttle
Mar 8th 2011, 12:41 AM
You know, there were plenty of worse crimes he could have been complaining about. There were robbers, and killers, and rapists. The Romans occupied Judea and levied heavy taxes against the populace, and apponted the High Priest to the Highest Bidder. Really. There were Jews who wanted to be Roman and Greek, culturally and religiously. There were plenty of people who flat out ignored the law.

The Pharisees acting extra-religious is the big issue to him? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

Unless of course Jesus wanted to de-legitimize them. So that people would follow him, perhaps?

Fenris:

Perhaps you don't see the Pharisees "acting extra-religious" as a big deal because you don't understand what Jesus was getting at by denouncing them in the first place. From what I've read in the Bible, I think what was going on was that they thought that the way to be pleasing to God was to have all your theological ducks in a row, so to speak. But, they were doing it for all the wrong reasons. As Diggindeeper pointed out, they were doing all the right things because they perceived God as a big "cosmic bookkeeper in the sky," so to speak, who keeps a balance sheet of our sins and good deeds, and when there are more good deeds than bad, He loves us. But, if our bad deeds outweigh the good, He doesn't. Unfortunately, the Bible doesn't teach that at all, so when Jesus came along, teaching that God's love is unconditional and is based on His nature and character, rather than on what we do or don't do, this threatened everything the Pharisees stood for. After all, who likes to have their whole theology shown to be based on faulty presuppositions about how God works? Besides, one of the other main reasons the Pharisees didn't like Jesus was He was immensely popular with the ordinary people, so they were jealous of Him having more followers than them. Just some things to think about. God bless, and have a great day in the Lord!

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 04:44 PM
Several Pharisees became believers in Christ.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 05:14 PM
The bible is found in them and they are on the shelf next to the bible covers.

Ahem. Where in the bible do we find the obligation to wear phylacteries?

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 05:16 PM
Fenris:

Perhaps you don't see the Pharisees "acting extra-religious" as a big deal because you don't understand what Jesus was getting at by denouncing them in the first place.
I don't understand why it was so important to condemn people who were essentially doing the right thing, even if (as you claim) for the wrong reasons. The OT prophets tended to condemn far far worse behavior.

BroRog
Mar 8th 2011, 05:41 PM
I don't understand why it was so important to condemn people who were essentially doing the right thing, even if (as you claim) for the wrong reasons. The OT prophets tended to condemn far far worse behavior.This is an essential issue for our faith. Jesus expected the Pharisees to both do the right thing and do them for the right reason.

An example of the principle, is found at the wedding between a wealthy 70 year-old man and a 25 year-old woman who has little money. When the woman verbally expresses her love for the man, is her love true and genuine or is she pretending. Did she marry for money? Is she pure of heart or double minded?

David expresses this idea in Psalm 32, and Pslam 51 where he reminds himself that the sacrifices God wants are a broken spirit and a contrite heart. David practiced his religion and obeyed God, but he also gives expression to his inner life, reminding himself that God desires "truth in the innermost being. He knows that forgiveness is granted, not to those who merely go through the motions of the rituals, but to those who are honest, contrite, humble, truthful in spirit.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees, not because they did the right things, but because they were simply acting out the part of a righteous person. It was all an act for some of them. Just as the man in the commercial says, "I am not a doctor but I play one on TV", the Pharisee would say, if he were honest, "I'm not a good person but I play the part." David would say, to the Pharisee, God doesn't want you to play act, he wants you to be honest, genuine, true, without deceit in the innermost being, contrite, and broken. Obedience to God isn't simply keeping the rules, it has to be real -- a genuine expression of a true love of God.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 05:47 PM
This is an essential issue for our faith. Jesus expected the Pharisees to both do the right thing and do them for the right reason.

The OT prophets lectured on justice, righteousness, and idolatry, and general disregarding of the law.

Jesus lectured on people following the law, although not for the right reasons.

Consider me underwhelmed.

notuptome
Mar 8th 2011, 06:13 PM
Ahem. Where in the bible do we find the obligation to wear phylacteries?
What would cause you to think it was an obligation? It was done as a religious pretense. If anyone made it an obligation it was the Pharisees not God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 8th 2011, 06:15 PM
Consider me underwhelmed.
Hey that would make a great tee shirt.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 06:23 PM
What would cause you to think it was an obligation? It was done as a religious pretense. If anyone made it an obligation it was the Pharisees not God.

Really? How odd. Because Jesus doesn't condemn the practice of wearing phylacteries. He only complains that they are "too wide"...

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 06:24 PM
Hey that would make a great tee shirt.

Yeah...now some lurker who doesn't even post here is going to make a million dollars off it. Sigh.

notuptome
Mar 8th 2011, 06:32 PM
Really? How odd. Because Jesus doesn't condemn the practice of wearing phylacteries. He only complains that they are "too wide"...
All things in moderation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

notuptome
Mar 8th 2011, 06:34 PM
Yeah...now some lurker who doesn't even post here is going to make a million dollars off it. Sigh.
The machines in China are tooling up even as we speak.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 06:34 PM
All things in moderation.


Where in the bible is the practice of wearing phylacteries written?

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 06:36 PM
The machines in China are tooling up even as we speak.

The worst part is, i will see some guy on the street wearing this t shirt and I will tell him it was my idea and he'll say "Get lost before I...."

episkopos
Mar 8th 2011, 06:44 PM
Where in the bible is the practice of wearing phylacteries written?

It is the same response as having a mezuzah on the doorpost.

Deut 6
4* ¶ “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!
5* “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
6* “These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart.
7* You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.
8* “You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead.
9* “You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
10* “Then it shall come about when the LORD your God brings you into the land which He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you, great and splendid cities which you did not build,
11* and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and hewn cisterns which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant, and you eat and are satisfied,
12* then watch yourself, that you do not forget the LORD who brought you from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 06:45 PM
It is the same response as having a mezuzah on the doorpost.

very good! Gold star for you!

Next question: Does the verse actually describe what phylacteries are?

RabbiKnife
Mar 8th 2011, 07:02 PM
Answer: No.

Aren't phylacteries what the boys were trying to buy at the drugstore in "Summer of '42"?

Sorry. The word "phylacteries" is just such a cool word.

BroRog
Mar 8th 2011, 07:19 PM
The OT prophets lectured on justice, righteousness, and idolatry, and general disregarding of the law.

Jesus lectured on people following the law, although not for the right reasons.

Consider me underwhelmed.I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 07:22 PM
I'm not exactly sure what you mean.
If the worst thing someone could complain about in first-century Judea was observance of the law for the wrong reasons, I would say the Jews were doing pretty good...

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 07:48 PM
Ahem. Where in the bible do we find the obligation to wear phylacteries?

D'varim 6?? .

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 07:50 PM
D'varim 6?? .

Indeed. very good, even got the language right!

Next question: Does the verse actually describe what phylacteries are?

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 07:51 PM
If the worst thing someone could complain about in first-century Judea was observance of the law for the wrong reasons, I would say the Jews were doing pretty good...

I trust God would meet anyone who is trying. Jew, Gentile, slave, man or woman makes no difference. But that's just silly 'ol me.

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 07:53 PM
Indeed. very good, even got the language right!

Next question: Does the verse actually describe what phylacteries are?

No. Neither does Numbers detail Tzitzit nor the scroll I have in the Mezuzah on my doorpost. But I have to admit the design and traditions are beautiful and honors God.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 07:53 PM
I trust God would meet anyone who is trying.
"trying" what, exactly?

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 07:54 PM
No. Neither does Numbers detail Tzitzit nor the scroll I have in the Mezuzah my doorpost.
Ah. So how do we know what they are? Where did the "tradition" of their construction come from?

episkopos
Mar 8th 2011, 07:55 PM
very good! Gold star for you!

Next question: Does the verse actually describe what phylacteries are?

Again...no more so than a mezuzah is described. I take it that the commands were taken literally...therefore the appropriate containers were devised and given names that seemed right to give them. The containers themselves are traditional...not biblically based per se.

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 07:56 PM
"trying" what, exactly?

Trying to honor, obey and seek God.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 07:56 PM
Again...no more so than a mezuzah is described. I take it that the commands were taken literally...therefore the appropriate comtainers were devised and given names that seemed right to give them. The containers themselves are traditional...not biblically based per se.

So people just...made it up?

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 07:57 PM
Ah. So how do we know what they are? Where did the "tradition" of their construction come from?

I do not know. From Rabbi's I would guess. Based on the above responses. I don't believe the average person knows what goes into these things or what they represent, or the beauty of the intracracy of their design. I do know that Jesus wore both.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 07:58 PM
Trying to honor, obey and seek God.
Doesn't address my point. If the worst anyone could say about first century Judea is that the Jews did the right thing for the wrong reasons, I would say they were doing very well indeed.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 07:58 PM
I do not know. From Rabbi's I would guess. Based on the above responses. I don't believe the average person knows what goes into these things. I do know that Jesus wore both.

Jesus wore something that the rabbis made up? Why didn't he complain about it?

episkopos
Mar 8th 2011, 08:01 PM
So people just...made it up?

Why not? Again, the commands were taken literally. The people who took those commands as literal would have seen fit to carry this out. The fact that there are names for them is normal. People name things. This would be under the catagory of tradition.

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 08:03 PM
Jesus wore something that the rabbis made up? Why didn't he complain about it?

He didn't. He also didn't complain about Hillel's summation of the Law, actually He affirmed it. I also am inclined to think that His crossing of the field in Matthew (5 is it?) was a 'short' cut so He could stay within the limits of a "sabbath's day walk-" another man-made ruling.

In fact, I don't see Jesus rebuking any 'traditions' except where He thought they set aside God's Laws or were used to oppress regular folk, like the dude He healed and got chastized for carrying his mat.

episkopos
Mar 8th 2011, 08:03 PM
The problem is when men think they understand something, and go running with it. So when God comes to explain the commandment, He is seen as invasive on their tradition.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing!

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 08:03 PM
Why not?
So God gave them a command and didn't tell them how to fulfill it? Doesn't that seem a bit...weird? God tells Moses "Wear phylacteries". Moses doesn't say "uh...Lord....what's a phylactery"?

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 08:04 PM
The problem is when men think they understand something, and go running with it. So when God comes to explain the commandment, He is seen as invasive on their tradition.

Where does God explain "phylacteries'?

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 08:05 PM
He didn't. He also didn't complain about Hillel's summation of the Law, actually He affirmed it. I also am inclined to think that His crossing of the field in Matthew (5 is it?) was a 'short' cut so He could stay within the limits of a "sabbath's day walk."

In fact, I don't see Jesus rebuking any 'traditions' except where He thought they set aside God's Laws or were used to oppress regular folk.

Jesus didn't like hand-washing before eating. How does that set aside God's laws?

episkopos
Mar 8th 2011, 08:06 PM
Where does God explain "phylacteries'?

He doesn't. The measurements etc....are made by tradition.

I'll ask you this...

For sukkoth there are exacting standards on the perfect etrog etc.... Where does this come from?

TRADITION

episkopos
Mar 8th 2011, 08:08 PM
Jesus asked a man he healed to carry what the people considered a masa (burden) on the sabbath. Was this breaking the law?

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 08:09 PM
He doesn't. The measurements etc....are made by tradition.

I'll ask you this...

For sukkoth there are exacting standards on the perfect etrog etc.... Where does this come from?

TRADITION

I've heard this answer before. Makes no sense. Where was the tradition when God gave the rules?

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 08:09 PM
Jesus asked a man he healed to carry what the people considered a masa (burden) on the sabbath. Was this breaking the law?
Stay on topic please.

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 08:10 PM
Jesus didn't like hand-washing before eating. How does that set aside God's laws?

Oh, something to do with loving your neighbor, being humble.....it would be like me beating someone over the head for not celebrating some Christian tradition that is not found anywhere in the Bible. And there are a few of them. They are lovely traditions, but I shouldn't be rebuked for not observing them by fellow Christians.

For example when my dad went to Catholic School, he was whipped for not kneeling before and kissing the feet of a statue of Mary. That's the kind of nonsense that hurts people who seek God.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 08:11 PM
Oh, something to do with loving your neighbor, being humble.....it would be like me beating someone over the head for not celebrating some Christian tradition that is not found anywhere in the Bible. And there are a few of them. They are lovely traditions, but I shouldn't be rebuked for not observing them by fellow Christians.

For example when my dad went to Catholic School, he was whipped for not kneeling before and kissing the feet of a statue of Mary. That's the kind of nonsense that hurts people who seek God.

Jesus didn't like hand-washing before eating. How does that set aside God's laws?

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 08:13 PM
Jesus didn't like hand-washing before eating. How does that set aside God's laws?

I think Lev 19.18 could be applied to this. Possibly 19:14.....Perhaps even 19.17, but the rebuke would be in error, since there is no law concerning the hand-washing and blessing.

So what we have here is a rebuke against something the Law does not define as sin. That would make the rebuke the sin.

episkopos
Mar 8th 2011, 08:14 PM
I've heard this answer before. Makes no sense. Where was the tradition when God gave the rules?

A tradition in this case is a man-made way of getting something done that is senn as important. It is the zeal of men that does this.

As Paul has said...

30What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.

Rom 9:32Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

33As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

episkopos
Mar 8th 2011, 08:16 PM
..so Israel according to the flesh took on for itself the task of accomplishing something impossible thereby creating their own righteousness in the process.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 08:18 PM
A tradition in this case is a man-made way of getting something done that is senn as important.
I'm not following you.

God said "Wear phylacteries". Where did they get the idea what it was a square leather box with parchment in it?

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 08:19 PM
I think Lev 19.18 could be applied to this. Possibly 19:14.....Perhaps even 19.17, but the rebuke would be in error, since there is no law concerning the hand-washing and blessing.

So what we have here is a rebuke against something the Law does not define as sin. That would make the rebuke the sin.
I'm not following you. Good hygiene is to be rebuked?

RabbiKnife
Mar 8th 2011, 08:19 PM
1. Where do we find Jesus wearing phylacteries in the NT? That's nu to me.
2. Or fringed robe.

I'm humming "Fiddler on the Roof" "TRADITIOOOOOOOOOON....TRADITION.....TRADITION>>>>>"

Thanks, guys.

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 08:21 PM
I'm not following you. Good hygiene is to be rebuked?

It wasn't about hygene and you know it.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 08:23 PM
It wasn't about hygene and you know it.
It wasn't putting a stumbling block in front of the blind either.

Weirdly enough, it was about a remembrance of how things were done in the temple. Which means that practice didn't begin until after the year 70. :hmm:

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 08:23 PM
1. Where do we find Jesus wearing phylacteries in the NT? That's nu to me.
2. Or fringed robe.

I'm humming "Fiddler on the Roof" "TRADITIOOOOOOOOOON....TRADITION.....TRADITION>>>>>"

Thanks, guys.

Fringes are In the Law (Deut 22:12, Num 15:38). If Jesus didn't wear them, then He sinned (or denied Himself, take your pick).

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 08:24 PM
It wasn't putting a stumbling block in front of the blind either.

Weirdly enough, it was about a remembrance of how things were done in the temple. Which means that practice didn't begin until after the year 70. :hmm:

I lost you........................

episkopos
Mar 8th 2011, 08:25 PM
I'm not following you.

God said "Wear phylacteries". Where did they get the idea what it was a square leather box with parchment in it?

Where does it say to wear a tefilin?

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 08:25 PM
Where does it say to wear a tefilin?

I asked you that already.

Fenris
Mar 8th 2011, 08:26 PM
I lost you........................

Don't worry about it.

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 08:28 PM
Don't worry about it.

Ah....the veil, the partial blindness of Israel???

episkopos
Mar 8th 2011, 08:29 PM
I asked you that already.

It doesn't say that. Tefilin are based on a traditional understanding of the verse in Deut. 6. The response??? Make a box and put a literal piece of paper in there!!!:)

Then say...we did as you commanded!

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 08:31 PM
It doesn't say that. Tefilin are based on a traditional understanding of the verse in Deut. 6. The response??? Make a box and put a literal piece of paper in there!!!:)

Then say...we did as you commanded!

Kinda reminds me of a Christmas tree or easter eggs. Without the pagan innuendo of course.

eye, meet log.

RabbiKnife
Mar 8th 2011, 08:34 PM
Fringes are In the Law (Deut 22:12, Num 15:38). If Jesus didn't wear them, then He sinned (or denied Himself, take your pick).

Did Jesus wear a cloak? It was not listed in the garments divided at the crucifixion.

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 10:22 PM
Did Jesus wear a cloak? It was not listed in the garments divided at the crucifixion.

What does a cloak have to do with anything?

RabbiKnife
Mar 8th 2011, 10:24 PM
What does a cloak have to do with anything?

The "garment you cover youself with" (Deut 22) is an outer garment, a cloak, not the inner robe.

Where does scripture teach or demonstrate that Jesus wore one?

keck553
Mar 8th 2011, 10:24 PM
The "garment you cover youself with" (Deut 22) is an outer garment, a cloak, not the inner robe.

Where does scripture teach or demonstrate that Jesus wore one?

Like the Romans gave him three options for His exection wardrobe...sigh.... Maybe nobunaga's logic would apply here?

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 12:58 PM
It doesn't say that. Tefilin are based on a traditional understanding of the verse in Deut. 6. The response??? Make a box and put a literal piece of paper in there!!!:)

Then say...we did as you commanded!And Jesus aka God was apparently ok with this. Provided they are not "too wide".

notuptome
Mar 9th 2011, 01:40 PM
And Jesus aka God was apparently ok with this. Provided they are not "too wide".
Jesus was interested in the hearts attitude. God has said that these people draw near Me with their lips but their hearts are far from Me.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 01:42 PM
Jesus was interested in the hearts attitude. God has said that these people draw near Me with their lips but their hearts are far from Me.

Still don't see why this is worse than outright ignoring of the law.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 01:48 PM
Anyway, so God is ok if we "make stuff up" to "fulfill the law", provided that "our heart is in the right place"?

thethirdtuttle
Mar 9th 2011, 01:52 PM
Fenris:

Based on some of your previous posts, both in this thread and elsewhere on these boards, you seem to think it's not that big of a deal that the Pharisees were doing the right things, even if they were doing them for the wrong reasons. Well, I would humbly and respectfully disagree. Is it important to do the right things? Absolutely! But, we have to do them for the right reasons, or else we are sinning. God knows the thoughts and intentions of our hearts, and wants right actions to flow from right motives. Otherwise, like the Pharisees, we are doing them to impress people, which means we value the opinions of human beings more than we do God's opinion. That is not the biblical way of looking at things, because as you know, the "fear of man brings a snare," as King Solomon writes in the book of Proverbs. Besides, in the grand scheme of things, God's opinion is the only one that truly matters. Is it nice to be liked and well-thought-of by other people? Sure, but the opinions of humans shouldn't determine whether we obey God or not. We should be willing to obey God's commands, no matter what people think about us or what the consequences might end up being. After all, even if it gets to the point in this world where being a Christian is illegal and the punishment is death, I would rather obey God and die rather than disobey Him and live, knowing I placed the opinions of human beings above that of almighty God.

Another thing you have said, either in this thread or elsewhere (please forgive me, but I can't remember exactly where), is that you think that if someone does something long enough for the wrong reasons, eventually they will do them for the right reasons. I would, once again, humbly and respectfully disagree. That might work for an extremely small minority of people, but it won't for most. That kind of thinking, where you try to change people from the outside in, is called behaviorism in psychology. As I already said, it might work for an extremely small minority of people, but it won't bring about the kind of true and lasting change that God is looking for. That kind of change can only happen from the inside out, when right actions flow from loving motives. Otherwise, like the Pharisees, all you are really doing is, once again, doing good things to get people to like you, when God wants us to do the right thing regardless of what people think or do.

Perhaps a couple of real-life examples would help. The first one is this: The vast majority of us have heard of Oprah Winfrey, and the ridiculous amount of stuff she has given away to the audiences on her talk show over the years. Is it wrong for Oprah to want to help people out? Absolutely not, as long as that desire is flowing from genuinely loving and godly motives. Now, while I don't know Ms. Winfrey personally, and since only God knows the thoughts and intentions of everyone's hearts, only He knows if her motives are pure and genuine. But, if the only reason she has helped all of those people out is to make herself look better in the eyes of the viewing public, then what she is doing is sin, no matter how many people it may have helped. That is because it is all about her, not about the other people or God. It's like she is saying through her actions, "Look at me! Look at what a generous, kind, helpful person I am! Pay attention to me! Like me!" That is, in a sense, idolatry, because it is valuing the opinion of men more than the opinion of God, and God is not pleased, honored or glorified by that kind of thinking.

The other example is this: Not that I would actually do this, but suppose I were to be all nice and loving and respectful to you here on the boards, but in my mind and heart was thinking all sorts of nasty, unloving, disrespectful, angry thoughts about you. Do you, in all intellectual honesty, think that God would be honored, pleased and glorified by such behavior? I don't think He would, but that's just me. Instead, he would want me to come to you and say, "You know, Fenris, when you said such and such, that really hurt my feelings. But, I forgive you, and I hope you can forgive me for holding those hurtful feelings towards you and not coming to you about it right away."

That's about it for now. I hope that helps clarify my thought process a bit better. God bless, my dear Jewish friend, and I hope you have a great day in the Lord!

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin

notuptome
Mar 9th 2011, 01:52 PM
Still don't see why this is worse than outright ignoring of the law.
The servant who knew his lords will and prepared not neither did according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes but he that knew not and did commit such things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 01:59 PM
The servant who knew his lords will and prepared not neither did according to his will shall be beaten with many stripes but he that knew not and did commit such things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few.

Why is "the servant" the Pharisees (kept the law, according to you for the wrong reasons) but not the Saducees (Roman toadies who bought into the priesthood)?

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 02:04 PM
Fenris:

Based on some of your previous posts, both in this thread and elsewhere on these boards, you seem to think it's not that big of a deal that the Pharisees were doing the right things, even if they were doing them for the wrong reasons. Well, I would humbly and respectfully disagree. Is it important to do the right things? Absolutely! But, we have to do them for the right reasons, or else we are sinning. There were plenty of Jews who did the wrong things, period. But Jesus saves his ire for those who actually do the right things, even if he suspects their motives. Why?


Another thing you have said, either in this thread or elsewhere (please forgive me, but I can't remember exactly where), is that you think that if someone does something long enough for the wrong reasons, eventually they will do them for the right reasons. I would, once again, humbly and respectfully disagree.
Feel free to disagree. Behavioral psychologists agree with me though. If you want to make something part of your nature, you do it repeatedly until it does become part of your nature. I don't care if it's brushing your teeth before bed or giving charity every day. Do it enough times and it becomes second nature.



Perhaps a couple of real-life examples would help. The first one is this: The vast majority of us have heard of Oprah Winfrey, and the ridiculous amount of stuff she has given away to the audiences on her talk show over the years. Is it wrong for Oprah to want to help people out? Absolutely not, as long as that desire is flowing from genuinely loving and godly motives. Now, while I don't know Ms. Winfrey personally, and since only God knows the thoughts and intentions of everyone's hearts, only He knows if her motives are pure and genuine. But, if the only reason she has helped all of those people out is to make herself look better in the eyes of the viewing public, then what she is doing is sin, no matter how many people it may have helped. Helping people is a sin if one has the wrong motivation? Try telling that to the people who were helped.



The other example is this: Not that I would actually do this, but suppose I were to be all nice and loving and respectful to you here on the boards, but in my mind and heart was thinking all sorts of nasty, unloving, disrespectful, angry thoughts about you. Do you, in all intellectual honesty, think that God would be honored, pleased and glorified by such behavior? Since I wwouldn't know your motivation, i don't see why not.


That's about it for now. I hope that helps clarify my thought process a bit better. I hope I have clarified mine as well.


God bless, my dear Jewish friend, and I hope you have a great day in the Lord!

God bless you too, Benjamin.

thethirdtuttle
Mar 9th 2011, 02:35 PM
There were plenty of Jews who did the wrong things, period. But Jesus saves his ire for those who actually do the right things, even if he suspects their motives. Why?

I wouldn't characterize the situation quite that way. From what I understand, the Pharisees were the religious leaders of their day, sort of like pastors or priests are for Christianity today. So, if they were doing the right things just because they want to be liked by people, rather than out of a genuine love for the people under their spiritual care, as well as a desire to please and honor God, that would be tantamount to a pastor or priest today doing good things while harboring unloving, hateful, prideful, unforgiving attitudes in his heart. That would not honor, please and glorify God, in my estimation. Besides all of that, Jesus was and is God, so He knew perfectly what the Pharisees' motivations and intentions were. You have to understand something, Fenris. Jesus loved the Pharisees very much, and respected them because they were the leaders instituted by God over His fellow Jews. The reason He railed against them so ferociously was because He hoped and prayed they would repent and realize just how harmful their legalistic, unloving, dogmatic understanding and practice of Judaism was to both themselves and their fellow Jews.


Feel free to disagree. Behavioral psychologists agree with me though. If you want to make something part of your nature, you do it repeatedly until it does become part of your nature. I don't care if it's brushing your teeth before bed or giving charity every day. Do it enough times and it becomes second nature.That doesn't address the heart issue, though. If a person is just going through the motions, so to speak, doing something just because they believe it is their duty, rather than because they want to do it to help other people and please God in the process, their heart is not truly changed. And, as I said before, that is the kind of change that only God can do through graciously granting someone the ability to repent and realize just how hurtful, sinful and wrong holding onto bitterness and unforgiveness, for example, can be.



Helping people is a sin if one has the wrong motivation? Try telling that to the people who were helped.While I see what you are saying, I would, once again, disagree. Yes, the people being helped will be better off by being helped, but the person doing the helping is doing it for all the wrong reasons, and that is what is important to God. As I said before, I don't think He is honored, glorified or pleased by people doing things just because they think it is their duty, or when they do them just because they place the opinions of human beings above those of God.


Since I wouldn't know your motivation, i don't see why not.

No, you don't know my motivation. But, God does, and when we do things for all the wrong reasons, He knows it and is not honored by that.


I hope I have clarified mine as well.Yes, you have. And, I thank you for it. In fact, I'm very thankful you are on these boards, Fenris. You have challenged me to be more precise in my thinking and writing, and for that, I thank you.


God bless you too, Benjamin.Thanks! You, as well.

Yours in Christ,

Benjamin

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 02:52 PM
I wouldn't characterize the situation quite that way. From what I understand, the Pharisees were the religious leaders of their day, sort of like pastors or priests are for Christianity today.
yes and no.

The Pharisees were the "lay" religious leaders. Unofficial and unpaid, they led because of their love of God and their fellow man.

The Saducees were the "official" religious leaders. The High Priest was one; the priesthood was full of them; the wealthy were predominantly Saducee; the saducees also had high-level contacts with the occupying Romans.

In my opinion, this makes the Saducees the ones who should have been attacked for hypocrisy and bad behavior.

So why weren't they? I have my thoughts but I won't share them here.



So, if they were doing the right things just because they want to be liked by people,
What's odd is that the Pharisees were liked by the people. According to Josephus, they were beloved by the common Jews and were gentle and good-natured.


You have to understand something, Fenris. Jesus loved the Pharisees very much, and respected them because they were the leaders instituted by God over His fellow Jews. The reason He railed against them so ferociously was because He hoped and prayed they would repent and realize just how harmful their legalistic, unloving, dogmatic understanding and practice of Judaism was to both themselves and their fellow Jews.This picture of them is difficult to reconcile with what we know about them from other sources.


That doesn't address the heart issue, though. If a person is just going through the motions, so to speak, doing something just because they believe it is their duty, rather than because they want to do it to help other people and please God in the process, their heart is not truly changed.
I still don't see why this is "worse" than outright ignoring of the law.


While I see what you are saying, I would, once again, disagree. Yes, the people being helped will be better off by being helped, but the person doing the helping is doing it for all the wrong reasons, and that is what is important to God.
I don't think it's more important to have the right motive. And I don't see how that follows form the bible, either.



No, you don't know my motivation. But, God does, and when we do things for all the wrong reasons, He knows it and is not honored by that.I think that God is "honored" when people see an obviously religious person doing the right thing. Since people don't know that persons motivation, it is simply not relevant.


Yes, you have. And, I thank you for it. In fact, I'm very thankful you are on these boards, Fenris. You have challenged me to be more precise in my thinking and writing, and for that, I thank you.You are quite welcome. I too have clarified my thoughts in the process.

keck553
Mar 9th 2011, 04:21 PM
yes and no.

The Pharisees were the "lay" religious leaders. Unofficial and unpaid, they led because of their love of God and their fellow man.

I am not sure we Christians are correct in our generalizations. From what I understand "pharisee" is a term for those who were lay studiers of the Bible - like we are. They were workers in many capacities, just as we are. There were several sects, or schools of thoughts, just as we have. They argued with each other, dragging traveling rabbi's like Jesus into their arguments (apparently few of these Shammai/Hillel arfuments occur in the Gospels). Just like us, and assuming there is nothing new under the sun, there were pharisees seeking God and there were pharisees seeking religion and again there were pharisees seeking to take advantage of others. Just as today. Tune in to your favorite evangelical network if you want to see for yourself.

If we stand on our arrogance and pride and point our righteous fingers at 'the Pharisees' then we've missed the entire context of Jesus' message. His message is for us as much as it was for them.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 04:26 PM
I am not sure we Christians are correct in our generalizations.
At issue is not the present meaning of the term "Pharisee", but what the NT meant by it.

notuptome
Mar 9th 2011, 05:15 PM
Why is "the servant" the Pharisees (kept the law, according to you for the wrong reasons) but not the Saducees (Roman toadies who bought into the priesthood)?
To whom much is given much is required. Which had a more complete knowledge of the law? The Roman toadies served how? Freely or conscription? The stripes whether many or few may be more than man can bear.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 05:27 PM
To whom much is given much is required.
The Saducees were priests in the temple. Presumably they knew just as much of the law of the Pharisees.

I hope I don't get censured for this comment, but here goes.

The Pharisees are accused of being fussy nitpickers. It seems to me that those who criticize them are really the ones who are being fussy nitpickers.

LookingUp
Mar 9th 2011, 06:39 PM
Feel free to disagree. Behavioral psychologists agree with me though. If you want to make something part of your nature, you do it repeatedly until it does become part of your nature. I don't care if it's brushing your teeth before bed or giving charity every day. Do it enough times and it becomes second nature.Hey, Fenris. Hope it’s OK that I comment.

Do anything enough times and it becomes a habit; it doesn’t necessarily become part of your nature. Until it does--and there are no guarantees that forming a habit will create a genuine characteristic--it’s just a habit that can be as easily broken as it was developed. It’s trying to change things from the outside in. A change of heart, on the other hand, changes things from the inside out and the effect is much more promising.


…In my opinion, this makes the Saducees the ones who should have been attacked for hypocrisy and bad behavior.

So why weren't they? I have my thoughts but I won't share them here.They were attacked for hypocrisy and bad behavior (Mt. 3:7; 16:1, 6, 11-12; 22:23, 34).


I still don't see why this is "worse" than outright ignoring of the law.Did Jesus say it was worse than ignoring the law?


I don't think it's more important to have the right motive. And I don't see how that follows form the bible, either.It’s more important because the action doesn’t make the man; the motive behind the action makes the man. “As in water face reflects face, so the heart of man reflects man” (Proverbs 27:19).

Look up the word “heart” in Proverbs and you’ll see how important the heart is to God.

Here are some verses to consider:

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination, how much more when he brings it with evil intent!” (Proverbs 21:27).

“Whoever secretly slanders his neighbor, him I will destroy; no one who has a haughty look and an arrogant heart will I endure” (Psalm 101:5).

“May my heart be blameless in Your statutes, so that I will not be ashamed” (Psalm 119:80).

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise” (Psalm 51:17).

“My shield is with God, who saves the upright in heart” (Psalm 7:10).

“O LORD, who may abide in Your tent? Who may dwell on Your holy hill? He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart” (Psalm 15:1-2).

“Who may ascend into the hill of the LORD? And who may stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart” (Psalm 24:3-4).


I think that God is "honored" when people see an obviously religious person doing the right thing. Since people don't know that persons motivation, it is simply not relevant.Sure, it’s great for the one watching but what about the soul of the one who is performing? And how much worse it would be if the one watching the “great” example catches the supposed religious one in hypocrisy? I know many who have been exposed to such hypocrisy and use it as an excuse to discredit God.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 06:50 PM
Hey, Fenris. Hope it’s OK that I comment.Always.


Do anything enough times and it becomes a habit; it doesn’t necessarily become part of your nature. Until it does--and there are no guarantees that forming a habit will create a genuine characteristic--it’s just a habit that can be as easily broken as it was developed. It’s trying to change things from the outside in. A change of heart, on the other hand, changes things from the inside out and the effect is much more promising.Yes. Well, the Jewish concept is that as the outside person changes through repeated actions, so too does the inside person.


Did Jesus say it was worse than ignoring the law?he used extremely harsh language against them. Furthermore, did he ever criticize anyone for ignoring the law?


It’s more important because the action doesn’t make the man; the motive behind the action makes the man. “As in water face reflects face, so the heart of man reflects man” (Proverbs 27:19).We are what we do. Shrug.


Look up the word “heart” in Proverbs and you’ll see how important the heart is to God. Oh, I never said that God doesn't desire the heart. Of course He does. But how do we show God that we love Him? By doing the things He asked.



Sure, it’s great for the one watching but what about the soul of the one who is performing?We can't see the soul. All we can see is what a person does. Because I am obviously Jewish, I am very careful about what I do in public. Because my actions reflect on other Jews and ultimately on God. This has nothing to do with what I'm thinking or feeling, since no one sees that. But at least they see a friendly Jewish guy trying to be helpful.

keck553
Mar 9th 2011, 07:05 PM
At issue is not the present meaning of the term "Pharisee", but what the NT meant by it.

I thought I addressed that???

BroRog
Mar 9th 2011, 07:45 PM
Always.
Yes. Well, the Jewish concept is that as the outside person changes through repeated actions, so too does the inside person. I don't see how this concept could be supported given our experience, and Jewish history.


he used extremely harsh language against them. Furthermore, did he ever criticize anyone for ignoring the law?I think a review of various passage will reveal that Jesus' harsh language was directed at the Pharisaic institution, but he was less harsh to individual Pharisees he met along the way. And yes, he criticized them for looking for loop holes in the law. He criticized the Pharisees for the practice of Corban, for instance, which they used to keep money for themselves that they could have used to help their parents. He was critical of their definition of "neighbor" since they used a definition that allowed them to collect usury from their fellow Jews, which was against the law. He was critical of their use of Moses' ruling on divorce, which was interpreted to allow Pharisaical men to divorce their wives in order to "legally" satisfy lust for another woman.


Oh, I never said that God doesn't desire the heart. Of course He does. But how do we show God that we love Him? By doing the things He asked. Granted. But we must use wisdom in our evaluation of groups who claim to know and love God. This isn't directed solely at the Pharisees or the Jews in general. Christian groups, denominations, and institutions are just as bad. In other words, we can't judge a group by what they teach, but what they actually do. Jesus wasn't critical of their teaching, as much as he was critical of their practice. He was critical of those men who "reinterpreted" Moses in such a way and to such a degree that they were able to say they kept the law, but in reality, their interpretation of the law was contrary to God's worldview.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 07:55 PM
I thought I addressed that???

You are putting your own spin on who he was talking to. He was speaking to specific group of people.

keck553
Mar 9th 2011, 07:57 PM
You are putting your own spin on who he was talking to. He was speaking to specific group of people.

I see. So nothing in the Bible applies to us today?

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 08:01 PM
I don't see how this concept could be supported given our experience, and Jewish history.
I think Jewish history proves it. feel free to disagree.



I think a review of various passage will reveal that Jesus' harsh language was directed at the Pharisaic institution, but he was less harsh to individual Pharisees he met along the way. He saved his wrath for them. I think first-century Judea had more deserving targets.

I find it significant for reasons I shall not elaborate here.



Granted. But we must use wisdom in our evaluation of groups who claim to know and love God. This isn't directed solely at the Pharisees or the Jews in general. Christian groups, denominations, and institutions are just as bad. In other words, we can't judge a group by what they teach, but what they actually do. Jesus wasn't critical of their teaching, as much as he was critical of their practice. He was critical of those men who "reinterpreted" Moses in such a way and to such a degree that they were able to say they kept the law, but in reality, their interpretation of the law was contrary to God's worldview.According to Jesus, you mean. Regardless, if I love my God, I'm going to do what he told me to do. Not "in spirit", but in actual, concrete actions.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 08:03 PM
I see. So nothing in the Bible applies to us today?

I didn't say that. We're analyzing Jesus's interactions with the Pharisees.

notuptome
Mar 9th 2011, 08:05 PM
The Saducees were priests in the temple. Presumably they knew just as much of the law of the Pharisees.

I hope I don't get censured for this comment, but here goes.

The Pharisees are accused of being fussy nitpickers. It seems to me that those who criticize them are really the ones who are being fussy nitpickers.
In reading the NT it seems there was a great theological difference as well...the Sadducees say there is no resurrection but the Pharisees confess that it is so. Act 23:6-9 Paul used this to his advantage in this passage. Paul being a Pharisee you know... a Pharisee of Pharisees. The nittiest of the nitpickers that ever picked nits. But what a change when he yielded to the immense grace of God in Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 08:08 PM
In reading the NT it seems there was a great theological difference as well...the Sadducees say there is no resurrection but the Pharisees confess that it is so. Correct.


Act 23:6-9 Paul used this to his advantage in this passage. Paul being a Pharisee you know... a Pharisee of Pharisees. The nittiest of the nitpickers that ever picked nits. So he claims, anyway.

keck553
Mar 9th 2011, 08:12 PM
I didn't say that. We're analyzing Jesus's interactions with the Pharisees.

Well fine then. Forget what I said about applications of the teachings today. Do you think the rest of my post makes sense?

BroRog
Mar 9th 2011, 08:20 PM
I think Jewish history proves it. feel free to disagree.How would you explain the prophetic consensus that the chosen people were stubborn and obstinate? Doesn't Jewish history teach us that Jewish practice doesn't necessarily lead to an improved inner life?


According to Jesus, you mean. Regardless, if I love my God, I'm going to do what he told me to do. Not "in spirit", but in actual, concrete actions.Why does it have to be either/or? Are you really suggesting that there is no difference between a person who keeps the Sabbath because he loves God and the one who keeps the Sabbath for selfish reasons?

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 08:38 PM
Do you think the rest of my post makes sense?
I think it is significant that he singled out the Pharisees as a group. Why didn't he just say "the Jews"? Or "the Saducees"? Or "the Essenes"?

divaD
Mar 9th 2011, 08:38 PM
Oh, I never said that God doesn't desire the heart. Of course He does. But how do we show God that we love Him? By doing the things He asked.



It's interesting you should say this..."But how do we show God that we love Him? By doing the things He asked".

What if one of those things that God asked of us was to believe in and honor His Son, in this case, Jesus Christ? So, what if we didn't want to do that? How would we be showing God that we loved Him, when we're refusing to do what He asks? If you conclude God hasn't asked this of us, then perhaps you're not looking in the right places, or perhaps you are aware of it, but refuse to believe it.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 08:43 PM
How would you explain the prophetic consensus that the chosen people were stubborn and obstinate?
Being stubborn isn't always a bad thing. It ensures that you stay true to your inner convictions in spite of peer pessure. Why do you think we're still here, a tiny minority, after 20 centuries of exile?


Doesn't Jewish history teach us that Jewish practice doesn't necessarily lead to an improved inner life?I don't know what an "improved inner life" means. I will get grief for saying this, but I think, in general, Jews have behaved better than the people they lived amongst.


Why does it have to be either/or? Are you really suggesting that there is no difference between a person who keeps the Sabbath because he loves God and the one who keeps the Sabbath for selfish reasons?
I'm suggesting that there's a difference between keeping the sabbath in actuality and keeping the sabbath "in spirit".

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 08:44 PM
What if one of those things that God asked of us was to believe in and honor His Son, in this case, Jesus Christ?
But God didn't say that. Heck, I'm not even sure that Jesus said it.

What he did tell us to do is follow the law. So I do, as best I can.

divaD
Mar 9th 2011, 09:26 PM
But God didn't say that. Heck, I'm not even sure that Jesus said it.




Jesus said it alright. He also implied that the Father desired it.

John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

Fenris
Mar 9th 2011, 09:32 PM
Jesus said it alright. He also implied that the Father desired it.

Uhm, he's being rather ambiguous here. The whole "Jesus as part of the trinity" wasn't sorted out definitively until 325. I understand it's something that you believe, but it certainly isn't black on white in the NT. Also "implying that the father desired it" isn't enough for me.

LookingUp
Mar 9th 2011, 10:55 PM
Always.Thanks. :)


Yes. Well, the Jewish concept is that as the outside person changes through repeated actions, so too does the inside person.And that’s a guarantee?

Where is that taught in Scripture?


he used extremely harsh language against them.And against the Sadducees. Isn’t that right? Did you see the Scripture where Jesus rebukes them?


Furthermore, did he ever criticize anyone for ignoring the law?Yes, he did.

Remember, it was Jesus who said, “Whoever annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:19).

Here Jesus specifically criticizes the scribes and Pharisees for ignoring the law:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others” (Mt. 23:23).

Here again, Jesus criticizes them for ignoring the law:

“Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law?” (John 7:19).

Ignoring the Law is obviously wrong. But I, personally, see why pretending to love the Law can be more dangerous. One who ignores the Law does not represent God in any way—they have not made any commitments to Him and His Law. So, those watching will not attribute their poor behavior to God. One who only pretends to love God and His Law represents God and those watching will attribute their poor behavior to God. It’s about God’s reputation. Hypocritical religious people damage God’s reputation and hinder others from developing their own relationship with Him, while people who simply ignore the Law out of selfishness or wickedness have no power to do that.


We are what we do. Shrug.So, Solomon was wrong? It’s not the heart of man that reflects the man? It’s the actions that reflect the man? Is that what you’re saying, Fenris? I do agree that actions can be a reflection of what’s in the heart. Is that what you really mean?


Oh, I never said that God doesn't desire the heart. Of course He does. But how do we show God that we love Him? By doing the things He asked.Of course. But that was never in question. You said, “I don’t think it’s more important to have the right motive. And I don’t see how that follows the bible, either.” The Bible does indicate that motives are more important than actions when the action is not motivated by a pure heart. The sacrifice (action) of the wicked (one with an impure heart) is an abomination (Proverbs 21:27). With this proverb, God has made it clear that if we have impure motives, our actions are considered an abomination to Him.

Who does God save? The one who makes sacrifices? The one who does some kind of works? God says He will save the upright in heart (Psalm 7:10). Yes, the upright in heart will sacrifice and do good works, but the one with an impure heart can also sacrifice and do good works. And those sacrifices and good works are an abomination to God, according to His words.

Who will abide in His holy place? The one who makes sacrifices? The one who does some kind of works? God says it is the one with a pure heart who will abide in His holy place (Psalm 24:3-4). Yes, the one with a pure heart will sacrifice and do good works, but the one with an impure heart can also sacrifice and do good works. And those sacrifices and good works are an abomination to God, according to His words.


We can't see the soul. All we can see is what a person does. Because I am obviously Jewish, I am very careful about what I do in public. Because my actions reflect on other Jews and ultimately on God. This has nothing to do with what I'm thinking or feeling, since no one sees that. But at least they see a friendly Jewish guy trying to be helpful.And that’s great. But we’re talking about what’s most important to God. According to God (Proverbs 21:27), motives are more important than actions when actions are not motivated by a pure heart. Actions can be a reflection of what’s in the heart, but only God knows when and if they are.

keck553
Mar 9th 2011, 11:04 PM
I think it is significant that he singled out the Pharisees as a group. Why didn't he just say "the Jews"? Or "the Saducees"? Or "the Essenes"?

They seem to have had the most interaction with Him. I think it's in Matthew that says after some point the Sadducees stopped questioning Him. I have to admit that I do not know the culture or its implications, I assume folks from Nazeret were relatively conservative as opposed to folks in Jerusalem. I realize that I think about these things in our cultural terms, however can't we keep in mind the particular human tendancies to control others especially in religious doings is consisitant throughout all cultures?

It's difficult for me to believe Jesus meant "all Pharisees" as opposed to the specific group He was addressing. Kinda like if I am in a room full of say...democrats - I could address them as "democrats" without implicating all democrats who exist. I find it difficult to believe Jesus would have rebuked anyone who was really trying to obey God.

keck553
Mar 9th 2011, 11:34 PM
I think it is significant that he singled out the Pharisees as a group. Why didn't he just say "the Jews"? Or "the Saducees"? Or "the Essenes"?

another thoought....and I know this will be controversial....and it's going to be hard to put into words so I'll just say it. In life, God chastizes those He loves.

Aaron01
Mar 10th 2011, 01:32 AM
Hi guys, interesting discussion. Couple of things I would like to point out, I just glanced over the thread so forgive me if it has been mentioned already. The Pharisees accepted oral tradition and the Sadducees did not, as Fenris has already mentioned Jesus told the crowd to do whatever the Pharisees taught them and follow it(Matthew23:2), this would suggest that Jesus preferred the Pharisaical interpretation of the law as apposed to the interpretation of the Sadducees(Matthew22:29) who did not accept oral tradition(the Mishnah).

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 01:24 PM
And that’s a guarantee?

Where is that taught in Scripture?
It's not a guarantee. But it is anecdotally true.



And against the Sadducees. Isn’t that right? Did you see the Scripture where Jesus rebukes them?Um, no. Reference please?


Yes, he did.

Remember, it was Jesus who said, “Whoever annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 5:19)."Whoever" annuls. He isn't singling anyone out, just making a general statement. OTOH he uses extremely critical language specifically against the Pharisees.


Here Jesus specifically criticizes the scribes and Pharisees for ignoring the law:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others” (Mt. 23:23).

Here again, Jesus criticizes them for ignoring the law:

“Did not Moses give you the Law, and yet none of you carries out the Law?” (John 7:19).
very vague. What are they not carrying out?



Ignoring the Law is obviously wrong. But I, personally, see why pretending to love the Law can be more dangerous.Of course. You have to feel this way, it's a central complaint Jesus has against the Pharisees. Judaism sees it the other way however: Better to do the right thing for the wrong reason, than not do it at all.



One who ignores the Law does not represent God in any way—they have not made any commitments to Him and His Law. So, those watching will not attribute their poor behavior to God. Disagree. Do pedophile priests make the whole Catholic church look bad? You bet they do.


One who only pretends to love God and His Law represents God and those watching will attribute their poor behavior to God. It’s about God’s reputation. Hypocritical religious people damage God’s reputation and hinder others from developing their own relationship with Him, while people who simply ignore the Law out of selfishness or wickedness have no power to do that.Again, you have to believe this because the NT makes such a big point of it.


So, Solomon was wrong? It’s not the heart of man that reflects the man? It’s the actions that reflect the man? Is that what you’re saying, Fenris? I do agree that actions can be a reflection of what’s in the heart. Is that what you really mean?We don't see what's in the heart. We see the actions. That is all.


Of course. But that was never in question. You said, “I don’t think it’s more important to have the right motive. And I don’t see how that follows the bible, either.” The Bible does indicate that motives are more important than actions when the action is not motivated by a pure heart. The sacrifice (action) of the wicked (one with an impure heart) is an abomination (Proverbs 21:27). With this proverb, God has made it clear that if we have impure motives, our actions are considered an abomination to Him.You are assuming a definition to bolster your argument. "Wicked" doesn't mean "impure heart". It means wicked. If someone cheats and steals all day long and then brings a sacrifice, you think this pleases God? I don't. Isaiah again and again warns against following ritual behavior while being a bad person to one's fellow man. This is the sacrifice God rejects. Not "someone with a bad heart".


Who does God save? The one who makes sacrifices? The one who does some kind of works? God says He will save the upright in heart (Psalm 7:10). Yes, the upright in heart will sacrifice and do good works, but the one with an impure heart can also sacrifice and do good works. And those sacrifices and good works are an abomination to God, according to His words.God says good works are an abomination? That's news to me.


Who will abide in His holy place? The one who makes sacrifices? The one who does some kind of works? God says it is the one with a pure heart who will abide in His holy place (Psalm 24:3-4). Yes, the one with a pure heart will sacrifice and do good works, but the one with an impure heart can also sacrifice and do good works. And those sacrifices and good works are an abomination to God, according to His words.And I would say this is poetry, not a legalistic ruling on "who is good with God".


And that’s great. But we’re talking about what’s most important to God. According to God (Proverbs 21:27), motives are more important than actions when actions are not motivated by a pure heart. Actions can be a reflection of what’s in the heart, but only God knows when and if they are.No, that's not what it says at all. It says ritual behavior does not suffice. This idea is all over the prophets.

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 01:26 PM
They seem to have had the most interaction with Him. I think it's in Matthew that says after some point the Sadducees stopped questioning Him.
A prophet shouldn't ignore those who are behaving the worst, just because they are ignoring him,

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 01:26 PM
another thoought....and I know this will be controversial....and it's going to be hard to put into words so I'll just say it. In life, God chastizes those He loves.
The OT prophets chastised those who behaved the worst, not those who were "pretty good but not good enough".

Fenris
Mar 10th 2011, 01:27 PM
this would suggest that Jesus preferred the Pharisaical interpretation of the law as apposed to the interpretation of the Sadducees(Matthew22:29) who did not accept oral tradition(the Mishnah).
Welcome aboard.

yeah, I could go along with this idea.

Raybob
Mar 11th 2011, 08:20 AM
Uhm, he's being rather ambiguous here. The whole "Jesus as part of the trinity" wasn't sorted out definitively until 325. I understand it's something that you believe, but it certainly isn't black on white in the NT. Also "implying that the father desired it" isn't enough for me.

Long before 325AD, there were over 500 eye witness accounts of seeing Jesus after He rose from the dead. If that wasn't proof enough back then of Jesus being the Son of God, I don't know what else could be.

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
(1Co 15:3-6)

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 10:51 AM
Long before 325AD, there were over 500 eye witness accounts of seeing Jesus after He rose from the dead. If that wasn't proof enough back then of Jesus being the Son of God, I don't know what else could be.Obviously you and I have a different definition of the word "proof". I mean, who are these 500 people? Can I interview them?

Raybob
Mar 11th 2011, 11:21 AM
Obviously you and I have a different definition of the word "proof". I mean, who are these 500 people? Can I interview them?

Who? They are among the rest of the 'great saints alive' with Jesus today. Yes, you too, could interview them when we all meet up yonder, if you would only believe. :)

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 11:51 AM
believe.
This being the key word here.

notuptome
Mar 11th 2011, 12:44 PM
Obviously you and I have a different definition of the word "proof". I mean, who are these 500 people? Can I interview them?
Can you interview Moses, Abraham?

Belief is only sufficient if it is belief in the truth revealed by God.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 12:46 PM
Can you interview Moses, Abraham?

Nope. And that's why I never claim to have "proof".

notuptome
Mar 11th 2011, 01:24 PM
Nope. And that's why I never claim to have "proof".
Then it would seem that you can believe in nothing. For the invisible things of God are seen in the creation that surrounds us.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 01:36 PM
Then it would seem that you can believe in nothing.
I believe in various things that I cannot prove. just as you do.

notuptome
Mar 11th 2011, 02:08 PM
I believe in various things that I cannot prove. just as you do.
I don't know. I've seen proof of resurrection.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 02:09 PM
I don't know. I've seen proof of resurrection.

Obviously you and I have a different definition of the word "proof".

notuptome
Mar 11th 2011, 02:19 PM
Obviously you and I have a different definition of the word "proof".
Or you over look the obvious. Resurrection is the dead rising in new life.

Consider the kernel of corn. Hard dry and lifeless. Put it in the soil and it rots when it absorbs the moisture of the soil. Warmed by sunlight it rises in newness of life and reproduces itself an hundred fold.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 02:25 PM
You lost me....

divaD
Mar 11th 2011, 02:41 PM
Or you over look the obvious. Resurrection is the dead rising in new life.

Consider the kernel of corn. Hard dry and lifeless. Put it in the soil and it rots when it absorbs the moisture of the soil. Warmed by sunlight it rises in newness of life and reproduces itself an hundred fold.

For the cause of Christ
Roger


So there's going to be a hundred of me when I rise? Folks have a hard enough time just dealing with one of me, including me, let alone having to deal with a hundred of me, lol. BTW, this is a good example of taking something way out of context, in case anyone wonders if context really matters much, lol

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 02:58 PM
in case anyone wonders if context really matters much
You mean I can't take a single verse, single word, or even a single letter and formulate a proof from it? :hmm:

divaD
Mar 11th 2011, 03:22 PM
You mean I can't take a single verse, single word, or even a single letter and formulate a proof from it? :hmm:



What better way to formulate one's own doctrine? New doctrines are started that way all the time. But it's totally different if that verse, for example, say like it were in the OT, and that it's related to a context somewhere in the NT. That wouldn't be taking that verse out of context, even tho it might seem out of context in the OT, when it really isn't.

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 03:26 PM
So it's ok to take verses out of context when it helps you. Yes, I see...

divaD
Mar 11th 2011, 03:36 PM
So it's ok to take verses out of context when it helps you. Yes, I see...



LOL. But it's not taken out of context if it agrees with another context somewhere else in Scriptures. It would be different if the NT wasn't God inspired writings, but it is. In the OT, like in the prophets, wouldn't you say that in sime places, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc, that the contexts are related to each other from time to time? Would it be wrong to try and use all 3 books to see the bigger picture? Or would you simply conclude the contexts of Isaiah stay with Isaiah, and the contexts of Jeremiah stay with Jeremiah, etc? IOW does Scripture help
to interpret Scripture or not?

Fenris
Mar 11th 2011, 03:43 PM
LOL. But it's not taken out of context if it agrees with another context somewhere else in Scriptures. It would be different if the NT wasn't God inspired writings, but it is.Only valid if you believe that it is.


In the OT, like in the prophets, wouldn't you say that in sime places, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc, that the contexts are related to each other from time to time? Would it be wrong to try and use all 3 books to see the bigger picture? Or would you simply conclude the contexts of Isaiah stay with Isaiah, and the contexts of Jeremiah stay with Jeremiah, etc? IOW does Scripture help
to interpret Scripture or not?
I'm not familiar with any prophet linking to another by necessity, the way the NT does.

keck553
Mar 11th 2011, 04:09 PM
I didn't say that. We're analyzing Jesus's interactions with the Pharisees.

When presented with disputes, He usually sided with Hillel, except when it came to divorce.

keck553
Mar 11th 2011, 04:14 PM
A prophet shouldn't ignore those who are behaving the worst, just because they are ignoring him,

Yeah, well maybe since decided to die like dogs, He granted them their wish, but gave them their reward in their lives.

Besides, they didn't listen to any prophets except Moses, is that right?

LookingUp
Mar 11th 2011, 04:57 PM
It's not a guarantee. But it is anecdotally true.Where is it taught in Scripture?


Um, no. Reference please?They’re in post #125. These show that the Sadducees were spoken harshly to as well.


"Whoever" annuls. He isn't singling anyone out, just making a general statement. OTOH he uses extremely critical language specifically against the Pharisees.Yes, not all but some. And some Sadducees as well.


very vague. What are they not carrying out?But the point is you wanted to know if Jesus ever criticized anyone for ignoring the Law, so I showed you a couple examples of that. It’s obvious Jesus didn’t want anyone to ignore the Law. That’s the whole point of Mt. 5:19. If anyone teaches someone to ignore the Law, they will be “least in the kingdom.”


Of course. You have to feel this way, it's a central complaint Jesus has against the Pharisees. Judaism sees it the other way however: Better to do the right thing for the wrong reason, than not do it at all.Well, I know people who don’t believe in the writings in the Bible who agree with me, so why is that they “have” to feel that way? Seems to me people want genuine transparency and not all this fake “religious” rubbish.

What does it mean when one gives to the poor to earn “heaven points” but has zero compassion for them? What does it mean to go to Church every week out of habit just to come home, get drunk and abuse your kids? What does it mean to serve in a Church ministry to look good to others while cheating on your spouse? Are these “sacrifices,” these “works” (giving to poor, going to Church, serving in a ministry) honoring to God? Is it better for them to do the right thing for the wrong reason rather than not at all? How does this “Christian” make God look? How does this behavior, once discovered, look to others considering a relationship with God?


Disagree. Do pedophile priests make the whole Catholic church look bad? You bet they do.Ummm…maybe you’re not getting my point, because that IS my whole point. Hypocrisy gives God a bad rep and hinders others’ potential relationship with God.


Again, you have to believe this because the NT makes such a big point of it.And you just agreed with it with your example of the pedophile priest. When I speak of a hypocrite, I’m talking about someone who professes faith but turns around and does something like that pedophile priest.


We don't see what's in the heart. We see the actions. That is all.Obviously.

So, was Solomon wrong or not? Is it the heart of the man that reflects the man, as Solomon says?


You are assuming a definition to bolster your argument. "Wicked" doesn't mean "impure heart".Does the wicked have a pure heart or an impure heart?


It means wicked. If someone cheats and steals all day long and then brings a sacrifice, you think this pleases God? I don't. Isaiah again and again warns against following ritual behavior while being a bad person to one's fellow man. This is the sacrifice God rejects. Not "someone with a bad heart".And if someone cheats and steals all day long and then serves in a Church ministry for cultural reasons, for some kind of a “cover” (to look good to others) or thinking he’s getting “heaven points” of some kind is the “sacrifice” God rejects.


God says good works are an abomination? That's news to me.

And I would say this is poetry, not a legalistic ruling on "who is good with God".Well, my idea of sacrifice also comes from NT teaching. “Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship” (Rom. 12:1). “But even if I am being poured out as a drink offering upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I rejoice and share my joy with you all” (Phil. 2:17). “But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God” (Phil. 4:18). This tells me that good works can be considered a sacrifice. So, yes, I feel comfortable citing Proverbs 21:27 to show that the sacrifice of good works is not acceptable to God when it’s offered with an impure heart.


No, that's not what it says at all. It says ritual behavior does not suffice. This idea is all over the prophets.Yes, and ritual behavior can include things such as saying rote prayers, going to Church, giving to the poor or tithing, and serving in ministry. For example, when a kid grows up in a home where the parents go to Church regularly, it can come about that these kinds of things become tradition and ritual more than out of the desires of the heart. Prayers become a memorized piece of poetry that has no significance in one’s heart. Going to Church becomes ritual; not out of desire. Giving to the poor or tithing becomes habit; not out of compassion. Serving in ministry becomes the cultural thing to do; not out of the interest of helping others. And so on.

notuptome
Mar 11th 2011, 05:18 PM
So there's going to be a hundred of me when I rise? Folks have a hard enough time just dealing with one of me, including me, let alone having to deal with a hundred of me, lol. BTW, this is a good example of taking something way out of context, in case anyone wonders if context really matters much, lol
Spiritually I hope you do...bringing others to Christ an hundred fold.

1 Cor 15:36 Paul taught about the seeds showing the necessity of resurrection.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

divaD
Mar 11th 2011, 05:23 PM
Spiritually I hope you do...bringing others to Christ an hundred fold.

1 Cor 15:36 Paul taught about the seeds showing the necessity of resurrection.

For the cause of Christ
Roger



That's an interesting perspective I had never considered. :) Hmmm...maybe I wasn't taking what you said out of context as much as I thought I was.

Raybob
Mar 11th 2011, 10:51 PM
Obviously you and I have a different definition of the word "proof".

The proof is in the pudding. I can proove it to myself from the way my life has changed in every respect, since I came to believe. Anyone that knew me before and after Christ in my heart can also see that proof.